Should the Government intervene to save a child's life?

Great Debates
1

despite it being against the parent’s religion to do so?

For instance, there were sextuplets born in BC and two of them died and the others were in danger of dying because they needed a blood transfusion.

The parents are Jehovah’s Witness and that religion refuses blood transfusions. The article is here.

Do you feel the parents should be allowed to follow their religion and not get their children blood transfusions or do you feel the Government did the right thing by stepping in and taking over, therefore possibly saving the children’s lives?

I think the Government did the right thing, even though I’m strong on people’s right to their religion, I’m strong on a child’s right to live.

2

Great.

Another person opening a Great Debates thread to re-affirm their own beliefs.

How about this: leave Government out of it!

Re-affirm the inherit sanctity of Human life.

So no, the parents were wrong.

3

I think the government should intervene to save kids lives. However, I am extremely weak on people’s right to their religion. I never think religion should be used to endanger or abused children. I could care less what adults do to themselves in the name of religion, but when they endanger kids, it is child abuse!

Jim

4

Gee. I wonder if the parents are going to be able to accept the children into the family now that they’ve been “violated.” Fuck them and their Jehovah’s Witless beliefs. I’m with **What Exit? ** It’s abuse.

5

I don’t think this case is that interesting. (I don’t mean that as in “why did you post this, moron?” - but as in “it’s too easy a case to resolve the underlying issue.”)

As most posters have noted - it’s a balancing act between the right to rear your children as you decide and the state’s interest in preventing child abuse. This case comes down to the fact that even though the parents may have a legal right to refuse life-saving medical care, they don’t have the right to refuse life-saving medical care to their children because their duty to protect their children and the state’s interest in protecting children are overriding.

As noted, I think it’s too easy a case - there’s way too much interest in protecting children from immediate death.

I do think it gets more interesting when you talk about cases where, for example, parents refuse to vaccinate their kids for religious reasons. Should they be compelled to? There’s no direct harm to the child - just greater potential for harm. At what point should the government step in / step out?

6

Or those who refuse mandatory blanket vaccinations because of actual scientific reasons? Not everyone who refuses is a religious nutjob. I’ve so far refused a Hep B vaccine for my toddler, because she’s at near-zero risk of getting Hep B. She’s not a drug user, she’s not sexually active. I will, around 11 or so, get her a Hep B vaccine. Ditto chicken pox - the vaccine’s immunity is not lifelong, and is likely to wear off just as getting chicken pox is dangerous, while getting the actual chicken pox as a child is more likely to confer lifelong immunity. So my daughter is unvaccinated in *hopes *she gets the disease before elementary school. If she doesn’t, she’ll get the vaccine around 11 or 12 (probably with her Hep B and HPV).

If we want to stick with the government vs. religion debate, how about religions which condone or encourage public or semi-public nudity? Teach that masturbation or sexual experimentation among consenting teenagers is okay and even A Good Thing? What about ones which legally use controlled substances (alcohol, peyote, iohasca) during religious services? What about ones which promote blind and unquestioning obedience to authority figures even unto protecting sexual abusers? Ones which encourage very young marriage and immediate and frequent childbearing? How about those that use terminology that might get their adherents’ kids made fun of at school, like “magic”, “fairies” and “witches”?

I think most reasonable people can agree that some outside authority should step in to preserve a life. But where do we draw the line when a life isn’t at stake but morals or socialization may be?

7

An incredibly useless reply which does not answer the OP. There is no “leave the government out of it” in this case. Either 1) the government steps in, because if not them, then who would do it, or 2) the kids die. That’s all.

Yes, the big, bad government was right to step in. No, the parents do not have a right to kill their kids.

8

No, there’s no reaffirmation going on here. I started this thread to debate this subject.

9

Look. I am as pro-choice as they come. I believe a woman should have a right to terminate her pregnancy any time she wants. I don’t believe any man or woman, and certainly not the government, has any right to step in.

That being said, the babies were already born. They were alive. There is no doubt they are human. Yes I set an arbitrary date of the baby becoming human at birth. Other’s don’t. This, however, is ridiculous. I actually feel much stronger but I’ll say this: religion used in this manner *should *be a crime.

10

Just wait 'til she turns 3! :wink:

In all seriousness, I had no idea that Hep B was on the “must have” list as opposed to the “good suggestion” list. Is it required to get into school, for instance?

11

Could you please provide a few cites for religions (not cults) that endorse these behaviors?

Jehovah’s Witnesses children and the blood issue is a long standing debate. I actually heard one tell a friend “I hope your baby gets hepatitus” after she approved a blood transfusion against the wishes of her JW husband.

12

Well, my kids will get communion wine when they are 7.

13

Sure.
**
religions which condone or encourage public or semi-public nudity:** Wicca, and many other neo-pagan religions. Not every coven, and not every Wiccan, but there’s a very common practice of being naked, or “skyclad” both during ritual time and recreational time.

Teach that masturbation or sexual experimentation among consenting teenagers is okay and even A Good Thing?: ditto. There’s a well-attended workshop at one neopagan festival I attend that is a teen only sexual information workshop run by a young woman who works at a well known adult toystore. The gist is “work at whatever pace you and your partner(s) are comfortable with, be safe and don’t be afraid to say no or yes.”
**
What about ones which legally use controlled substances (alcohol, peyote, iohasca) during religious services?:** Alcohol is used by the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant religions. cite Peyote is legal for use by several “small, clearly determined groups in magical or religious rites”, the largest being The Native American Church. Ayahuasca (sorry about that terrible phonetic spelling earlier - I meant to look up the proper spelling and edit that before posting and I forgot) plants and preparations are not illegal in the US, although it’s often combined with other plants to yield a controlled substance called DMT. DMT containing tea is legal for religious use in the US. See Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal. See Article 32 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances:

What about ones which promote blind and unquestioning obedience to authority figures even unto protecting sexual abusers?: The Roman Catholic Church, up until very recently, moved child-molesting priests to new parishes without informing their congregations of their crimes. They still will not release a complete list of offenders to legal authorities. They offer monetary settlements to victims in exchange for their silence.

Ones which encourage very young marriage and immediate and frequent childbearing?: When I wrote it, I was thinking LDS and LDS splinter groups. Upon reflection, I’d expand that to some Southern Baptist and other very conservative religions, as well. I admit this is a difficult one to separate religion from socioeconomic group.
**
How about those that use terminology that might get their adherents’ kids made fun of at school, like “magic”, “fairies” and “witches”?:** And we’re back to Wiccans and neopagans. Sorry if they’re overrepresented here but A. I know them best because I am one and B. they’re one of the most “out-there” groups with legal recognition that shock most Americans.

I probably also should have mentioned those that condone animal sacrifice and human blood-letting, like Santeria, Ifa and Voudoun and Hoodoo.

14

religions which condone or encourage public or semi-public nudity: Wicca, and many other neo-pagan religions. Not every coven, and not every Wiccan, but there’s a very common practice of being naked, or “skyclad” both during ritual time and recreational time.
No problem here as no harm to the minors. Still must be subject to local laws however.

Teach that masturbation or sexual experimentation among consenting teenagers is okay and even A Good Thing?: ditto. There’s a well-attended workshop at one neopagan festival I attend that is a teen only sexual information workshop run by a young woman who works at a well known adult toystore. The gist is “work at whatever pace you and your partner(s) are comfortable with, be safe and don’t be afraid to say no or yes.”
No problem here as no harm to the minors. Still must be subject to local laws however.

What about ones which legally use controlled substances (alcohol, peyote, iohasca) during religious services?: Alcohol is used by the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant religions. cite Peyote is legal for use by several “small, clearly determined groups in magical or religious rites”, the largest being The Native American Church. Ayahuasca (sorry about that terrible phonetic spelling earlier - I meant to look up the proper spelling and edit that before posting and I forgot) plants and preparations are not illegal in the US, although it’s often combined with other plants to yield a controlled substance called DMT. DMT containing tea is legal for religious use in the US. See Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal. See Article 32 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances:
No problem here as no harm to the minors.

What about ones which promote blind and unquestioning obedience to authority figures even unto protecting sexual abusers?: The Roman Catholic Church, up until very recently, moved child-molesting priests to new parishes without informing their congregations of their crimes. They still will not release a complete list of offenders to legal authorities. They offer monetary settlements to victims in exchange for their silence.
This is very wrong and we all know it is very wrong. The offenders and their protectors should be in jail. It is a disgrace.

Ones which encourage very young marriage and immediate and frequent childbearing?: When I wrote it, I was thinking LDS and LDS splinter groups. Upon reflection, I’d expand that to some Southern Baptist and other very conservative religions, as well. I admit this is a difficult one to separate religion from socioeconomic group.
How young is young? Does it violate any laws? I would be against the forced/arranged marriage of minors.

** How about those that use terminology that might get their adherents’ kids made fun of at school, like “magic”, “fairies” and “witches”?:** And we’re back to Wiccans and neopagans. Sorry if they’re overrepresented here but A. I know them best because I am one and B. they’re one of the most “out-there” groups with legal recognition that shock most Americans.
No reason for the government to interfere here, anymore than with Creationist that teach AI and creationism. If you want to teach your myths to a kid, enjoy. However, let it be balanced with accepted science.

I probably also should have mentioned those that condone animal sacrifice and human blood-letting, like Santeria, Ifa and Voudoun and Hoodoo.
Easy one, Animal sacrifice and human bloodletting (if it involves minors) should not be allowed by law.

Jim {I fully expect many others to disagree with me, so the standard YMMV}

15

Jim I agree 100% with your post.Letting minors take a sip of wine at communium is not endorsing their getting roaring drunk at home.

My biggest complaint is with any religion (Roman Catholics, LDS, Orthodox Jews, conservation Protestants) that does not let women lead the church. That belief is illegal, outdated, and sends a hideous message to females: You’re not good enough to do it, but it’s okay to think that because it is not discrimination. Any religion that treated men the same way would be taken to court.

16

That is an excellent addition. However, at least it makes it easier to tell the crazier religions from the more moderate. It seems to me if a religion allows woman to hold positions traditionally reserved for men, it is far more likely to be a progressive and reasonable religion.

I am not sure though, can you go to court if a group only allowed priestesses as an example? I doubt there is any basis for a trial. IANAL of course.

Jim

17

Why should animal sacrifice not be allowed? As long as it’s not an endangered species and it’s conducted in a sanitary manner it’s not any more wrong than slaughtering animals for food, clothes, sport, or any other reason we currently allow.

18

I do not like killing an animal for no purpose. I question if it would be done humanely and from the little bit I have seen on Santeria their method of killing chickens and goats are not humane.

I suppose that if a group, carefully killed a goat in a mostly painless fashion and then ate the remains after the sacrifice, I would be OK with it.

Jim